Pat, I think you missed the point of Gavin's posting. The problem isn't so much that Shawn wrote a review, but rather that he got to play with a pre-release version and receive technical assistance from his competitors under the pretext of doing a review. One has to question whether his motive was actually to carry out a little "industrial espionage." I don't claim to know his motives nor do I know that his product development effort was helped by this action, but I think that was the issue Gavin meant to raise. Shawn should at least have disclosed to Interex and the competitors the fact that he was developing a competing product. Also, his review should have mentioned that fact so readers could decide for themselves whether there was any bias in his evaluation. >>> Pat Sarkar <[log in to unmask]> 02/26/98 02:29pm >>> I disagree with the position the other vendors are taking with respect to Shawn reviewing their products and then coming up with his own competing product - it is up to Interact to decide whether to publish Shawn's reviews or not. Isn't it natural for someone to come up with a better solution after evaluating existing solutions? Shawn is no journalist - would anyone question Pat Buchanan running for president just because he criticized competitors on national TV as a CNN CrossFire journalist? I guess the real question is who is going to review Shawn's product - I feel that Shawn should provide evaluation copies of TimeWarp to all other vendors who want to review his product and post their review of TimeWarp on this list. I think it is great for users when someone in the know creates another competing solution. Pat Sarkar ---------- > From: Michael L Gueterman <[log in to unmask]> > To: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: Plug Alert: Y2K software > Date: Thursday, February 26, 1998 1:31 PM > > I tend to agree, a reviewer has an obligation to be un-biased, and > I can't see how that can be if they are producing a competing product. > I know that it can take several months from the time the review is > completed until it is published, but I would think that a product > such as this would have to be in the works longer than that amount > of time. > Shawn, would you care to comment on this? > > Regards, > Michael L Gueterman > Easy Does It Technologies > email: [log in to unmask] > http://www.editcorp.com > voice: (888) 858-EDIT -or- (509) 943-5108 > fax: (509) 946-1170 > -- > > On Thursday, February 26, 1998 12:01 PM, Gavin Scott > [SMTP:[log in to unmask]] wrote: > > Shawn Gordon writes: > > > S.M.Gordon & Associates is pleased to announce the release of > > > TimeWarp/3000, the newest entry in the world of HP3000 virtual > > > date/time > > > software. > > > > Gee. Is this something I need to start worrying about generally? > > > > We're contacted about providing a copy of our HourGlass product for > > a product review in Interact Magazine, and so we provide a pre- > > release > > early-access version of the software along with extensive technical > > support and information, and repeated extensions of the demonstration > > period for the reviewer. > > > > Since the same reviewer also wrote a review of our competitor's > > product, > > I can only assume that they also provided copies of their software > > and > > similar information to said reviewer. > > > > Now, a week after the review comes out in Interact, that same > > reviewer > > announces that he has developed a product with directly competes with > > both of the products he reviewed? > > > > I mean, what am I to think? > > > > G.